In message <he7933$tg...@ger.gmane.org>, Raúl Sánchez Siles
<rasas...@gmail.com> writes
From what you've said, I think the way forward is apparent. As you
surmise, accepting GPL v3 contributions isn't possible with the current
project status saying the project licence is v2. Actually, I think you
COULD accept v3 contributions, but to do so you'd need to change the
project licence to v3.
...Or to v2+, if I understood correctly.
No. In that case you're granting permissions that the author didn't
grant. Think about it ...
You're given a load of code that is licenced "v3+ plus OpenSSL
exemption". You then put it into a v2+ project ... BIG NO NO. You've
just gone and told all your recipients they can distribute as per GPL v2
- something the v3 author did NOT give you permission to do!
You said that your authors at the moment are a bit chary about moving to
v3, but you think it's a good idea. What's actually probably a good idea
then is to say that "All new contributions must be v2+ or v2/v3, in
preparation for a move to v3". (Or BSD, or some other GPL-compatible
(both versions) licence.)
That doesn't alter the project's current v2 status. It DOES stop a
developer throwing a spanner in the works by contributing some new
v2-only code which will prevent you from relicensing. And it makes clear
to developers where you are planning to go.
Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
